Response to Tcherkez and Farquhar: Rubisco adaptation is more limited by phylogenetic constraint than by catalytic trade-off

Rubisco is the primary entry point for carbon into the biosphere. It has been widely proposed that rubisco is highly constrained by catalytic trade-offs due to correlations between the enzyme's kinetic traits across species. In previous work, we have shown that the strength of these correlations, and thus the strength of catalytic tradeoffs, have been overestimated due to the presence of phylogenetic signal in the kinetic trait data (Bouvier et al., 2021). We demonstrated that only the trade-offs between the Michaelis constant for CO2 and carboxylase turnover, and between the Michaelis constants for CO2 and O2 were robust to phylogenetic effects. We further demonstrated that phylogenetic constraints have limited rubisco adaptation to a greater extent than the combined action of catalytic trade-offs. Recently, however, our claims have been contested by Tcherkez and Farquhar (2021), who have argued that the phylogenetic signal we detect in rubisco kinetic traits is an artefact of species sampling, the use of rbcL-based trees for phylogenetic inference, laboratory-to-laboratory variability in kinetic measurements, and homoplasy of the C4 trait. In the present article, we respond to these criticisms on a point-bypoint basis and conclusively show that all are unfounded. As such, we stand by our original conclusions. Namely, although rubisco kinetic evolution has been limited by biochemical trade-offs, these are not absolute and have been previously overestimated due to phylogenetic biases. Instead, rubisco adaptation has in fact been more limited by phylogenetic constraint.

Automated summary

In this article, the authors respond to criticisms regarding the rubisco kinetic traits and show that these criticisms are unfounded. They demonstrate that phylogenetic constraints have a greater impact on rubisco adaptation than catalytic trade-offs.